Why does TSA refuse to post prominently images of scans of people in these strip-search machines, at the same size and resolution that the machine's operator sees, at those airports where this invasive technology is being installed?

Why does TSA not inform travelers that they can decline to enter the virtual strip-search machines?

TSA isn't "strip searching" anyone. Look at the images on cnn.com...do you seriously think they are revealing? If you get your jollies from those images, you've got bigger problems than TSA!As I said to Nico, if you have nothing to hide, and, if you believe the images are not "revealing", please post your image as the operator sees it. What are you afraid of?

I have asked this questions several times over the last weeks yet no response from TSA.

Is it a hard question?

***********************************

TSA isn't "strip searching" anyone. Look at the images on cnn.com...do you seriously think they are revealing? If you get your jollies from those images, you've got bigger problems than TSA!

May 18, 2009 3:14 PMThe resolution without signal processing is around 1mm. With signal processing the resolution goes way up. TSA does do a virtual strip search when using these machines. Welcome to the world of high tech.

I don't want you scanning my children. I'm glad that there is more of a public comment on this topic. Your mini-picture warnings posted in locations where the scanners are being used are inadequate. Your education of the public on these images has been inadequate. Your education of the public on their options has been inadequate. That's why your folks keep citing a 99% acceptance rate for these unnecessary and intrusive machines.

Why not let the passenger see his/her own image within the booth as it's being generated?

Irish"

I think "Irish" here has an excellent suggestion. I mean, the security risk is low, since a terrorist or smuggler already knows what they have on them. It would also allow passengers to make an informed decision.

Me personally, introvert that I am, I'd prefer a whole body scan to a pat down, but to each their own.

What I get from the linked article is that the TSA will go ahead with deploying the machines regardless of what critics, privacy advocates, or anyone else thinks about it. The infallible TSA knows what's best for "security," so what anyone else thinks doesn't matter anyway. They'll follow their usual, well-practiced strategy of ignoring criticism, or spinning it away with warm fuzzy statements from officials skilled at artfully concealing the truth.

The article recites many of the objections raised in comments here, along with much of the same official dismissal and spin. The TSA will very happily cite their own statistics proving that people are very happy with the scanners, so we should welcome them too. But they conveniently omit important information, such as those "99%" were fully aware of what the scanner did, or whether they merely preferred a virtual strip search to the alternative of a friendly grope from Buster the TSO. However you look at it, the TSA is yet again taking the opportunity to show us their complete contempt for the traveling public.

In the end our concerns don't matter. The TSA will deploy the scanners as they see fit, and operate them according to whatever rules they choose (which of course will be SSI, so we can't ever know whether they're doing it properly). When the TSA wields the bludgeon of "Do you want to fly today?", the only realistic option is to grin and bare it.

That's a brilliant thought. Lets let the person see the scan so they can figure out the best place to hide something if their current attempt doesn't work.And where, exactly, could the person hide it that wouldn't be seen in the scanner? The only place I can think of is a body cavity, and presumably a serious smuggler already will use those areas if they know this tech exists - which they do. So your sarcastic response is noted - and dismissed.

Interesting, the comments I submitted yesterday afternoon didn't get posted, even though later ones did.

I was pointing out that the CNN image shows a little bit of the user-interface the operator of the machine has available, including controls for contrast and brightness (at least). It makes me wonder if it's possible to adjust these for greater realism and detail.

"It makes me wonder if it's possible to adjust these for greater realism and detail."

You should wonder. You should also wonder why TSA refuses to share images at the same size and resolution as the operators of these machines sees. And you should wonder why TSA refuses to answer questions about scanning children in these machines. And you should wonder why no one at TSA is willing to share images of themselves or their children in one of these machines.

Question: Why haven't we seen a full-size, full-resolution (same resolution the TSO will see) *frontal* male and female image produced by the MMW/WBI system?

Answer: It would be classified as pornography and not allowed to be shown on broadcast TV or considered appropriate for a mainstream internet news site.

Check out the CNN images, making sure you look at the frontal images on page 2. Even at this reduced resolution, the man's genitals are perfectly clear.

This thing is a strip search, plain and simple. Modesty, while a legitimate concern, has nothing to do with the main problem; TSA (i.e., the government) has neither the legal nor the moral right to strip search domestic passengers without probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed. In spite of TSA's delusions, desire to travel is not probable cause.

Anonymous said... Question: Why haven't we seen a full-size, full-resolution (same resolution the TSO will see) *frontal* male and female image produced by the MMW/WBI system?

Answer: It would be classified as pornography and not allowed to be shown on broadcast TV or considered appropriate for a mainstream internet news site.

Check out the CNN images, making sure you look at the frontal images on page 2. Even at this reduced resolution, the man's genitals are perfectly clear.

This thing is a strip search, plain and simple. Modesty, while a legitimate concern, has nothing to do with the main problem; TSA (i.e., the government) has neither the legal nor the moral right to strip search domestic passengers without probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed. In spite of TSA's delusions, desire to travel is not probable cause.

May 19, 2009 12:08 PM

......................TSA will apparently scan children with this Strip Search machine.

I hope some organization makes a legal case against all TSO's who participate in screening children.

@Anonymous, May 19, 2009 12:08 PM: "This thing is a strip search, plain and simple. Modesty, while a legitimate concern, has nothing to do with the main problem; TSA (i.e., the government) has neither the legal nor the moral right to strip search domestic passengers without probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed. In spite of TSA's delusions, desire to travel is not probable cause."

I'm actually not very concerned about modesty. My unclothed body is spectacularly uninteresting to look at. So I can be pretty sure that those anonymous, highly professional TSOs who spend each day in their remote hidey-hole scrutinizing thousands of electronically-stripped potential terrorists would find the sight of my bared hide even less exciting than I do.

I am somewhat more concerned about the significantly increased intrusion by an arrogant, unaccountable agency that operates in secret, believes itself to be infallible, places itself above the law, and has a consistently abominable track record of complete contempt for the civil rights, property, privacy, and dignity of passengers. The fact that they're putting so much effort into PR spin suggests that they know the scanners are more intrusive than they're willing to admit, and they know that many people have figured that out. What the TSA's spin-meisters seem incapable of understanding is that their preferred strategy of spin, lies, and condescending dismissal only makes things worse.

That's all very unfortunate, since the electronic strip search can potentially provide the first truly significant improvement in checkpoint screening. The public might accept it if they had confidence that the TSA would protect their privacy, and if the TSA had promoted it truthfully. But the TSA's track record inspires no such confidence, and they seem to regard both the truth and the public as dangerous enemies.

I have already expressed my real concern here several times: Specifically, the need to be separated from my wallet before undergoing the strip search. This seems to me a very serious flaw in the system, since the loss of a wallet and/or its contents during screening carries far more significant consequences than the loss (or "voluntary abandonment") of any other property. The TSA has addressed this concern in its usual fashion. TSOs who posted here have condescendingly dismissed me. And the e-mail I sent to the TSA contact center has gone unacknowledged. Why should I expect anything other than that?

The simplest and most cost-effective way of solving this and most other problems with the strip search scanners is to abandon the plans to make it the primary screening mechanism for all passengers, and relegate it to its current role as a "friendly" alternative to a pat-down in secondary screening. That seems the most appropriate and effective use of a very costly and extremely intrusive device.

The fact that you can keep your clothes on doesn't mean it's not virtually the same as a strip search. I have a hard time reconciling the actual images from the system with the TSA's claim that screeners only see a fuzzy image. If you can clearly see the person's breasts, buttocks and genitals, it's not fuzzy enough.

“Will TSA Strip Search children with the WBI MMW Machine?”I have only done this once before but I call foul.

The question “Are children screened in the Whole Body Imagers? (WBI)” was answered March 20, 2009 6:20 PM "Traveling 101 for Diabetics" by Blogger Bob from HQ.

“A: There is no age limit. Anybody who can stand with their legs shoulder width apart and arms raised for 5 seconds while remaining still can be screened in the WBI.”

You were quite active in this blog post comment section but I will assume you missed it.

I brought this answer to your attention April 22, 2009 10:28 AM "TWIC Casts a Security Net Over Ports"

The second foul is with your loaded question “Will TSA Strip Search children with the WBI MMW Machine?”. If a party does not believe the black and white images produced by the MMW Machine is a strip search, your question couldn't not be answered with the response you are trying to fish out because of the language of your question.

I think legislation on this matter is a good thing(sets boundaries). I don't think the use of Whole Body Imaging should ever be used without privacy algorithms and this should be on the books(law).( Whole Body Imagers are currently in use with privacy algorithms in US airports)

Wow... I'm impressed guys. When you first introduced the strip search machines, and make no mistake, that's what they are, about a year ago, I joined the loud chorus of voices on this forum protesting them as an unconstitutional violation of privacy. I still hold this position and it'll be a cold day in hell before I allow you to use one on me or on any of my loved ones. I'll give you one for tenacity though -- you tell a lie and you stick to it, hoping that at least some of the excreta you toss at the wall will stick.

I'm lucky enough to have changed jobs and no longer have the luxury of the time to devote to commentary the way I used to, nor the misfortune to have to have my rights violated twice weekly by TSA as I used to, but I do occasionally pop by and take a look to see the overwhelming amount of animosity TSA continues to engender from the traveling public and by those people who still care about their rights in this country. As for me, I can now return to my general policy of avoiding air travel except when absolutely impractical to do otherwise.

Nice to see some familiar faces as well as lots of new ones on the blog. Greetings to Trollkiller, Ann R. Key, Sandra, and Tom (1 of the 5 or 6).

@Anonymous, May 19, 2009 12:08 PM: "This thing is a strip search, plain and simple. Modesty, while a legitimate concern, has nothing to do with the main problem; TSA (i.e., the government) has neither the legal nor the moral right to strip search domestic passengers without probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed. In spite of TSA's delusions, desire to travel is not probable cause."___________________________________

Eww. Okay probable cause has nothing to do with TSA. Police need probable cause to search someone, yes. We are not police. Before you enter into a checkpoint there are postings that state that by going through the checkpoint you are subject to search. Therefor you, by entering into this area, are giving permission to the TSA to search you or your belongings. This new machine, 1 is not a strip search and 2 is a choice. No one has to go through it. But if you choose to go through, once again you are giving permission just like you gave them permission to search your things when you began to send them through the xray machine. Get over this probable cause garbage. You, the passengers, are giving permission to be searched when you walk through the checkpoint!

“Will TSA Strip Search children with the WBI MMW Machine?”I have only done this once before but I call foul.

The question “Are children screened in the Whole Body Imagers? (WBI)” was answered March 20, 2009 6:20 PM "Traveling 101 for Diabetics" by Blogger Bob from HQ.

“A: There is no age limit. Anybody who can stand with their legs shoulder width apart and arms raised for 5 seconds while remaining still can be screened in the WBI.”

You were quite active in this blog post comment section but I will assume you missed it.

I brought this answer to your attention April 22, 2009 10:28 AM "TWIC Casts a Security Net Over Ports"

The second foul is with your loaded question “Will TSA Strip Search children with the WBI MMW Machine?”. If a party does not believe the black and white images produced by the MMW Machine is a strip search, your question couldn't not be answered with the response you are trying to fish out because of the language of your question.

-Tim “H2H”

EoS Blog Team

May 19, 2009 2:03 PM.........................Tim, the answer you refer to did not address the question directly. It was typical TSA SPIN. That answer said any age could be scanned. It did not answer the question if they would be.

I am asking if children will be scanned. The answer is an easy yes or no. No SPIN required.

The question I am asking is straight forward and deserves an answer.

The MMW machine does look under ones clothing. The frontal images that CNN had in the article demonstrate with clarity that the machine is nothing less than an invasive strip search.

So a direct question to you Tim; will you scan children with the MMW machine if your superiors direct that you do so?

Anonymous wrote:Therefor you, by entering into this area, are giving permission to the TSA to search you or your belongings. This new machine ... No one has to go through it. But if you choose to go through, once again you are giving permission just like you gave them permission to search your things when you began to send them through the xray machine.Get over this probable cause garbage. You, the passengers, are giving permission to be searched when you walk through the checkpoint!The strip search machine is a "choice" for now, but TSA has all but admitted they want it to be mandatory.

And if you (TSA) put up a sign outside my home's driveway saying "all passers by are subject to search," that does not mean I have given you permission to search me by stepping outside my front door. It does mean you have blackmailed/extorted me into "consenting" to the search by making it a requirement of my basic living activities.

All of the "implied consent," "pax give permission," and "voluntary abandonment" brainwashing I suspect TSOs receive in training is hogwash. The only way it would make sense is if TSA's search was limited to weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and TSA did not report cash, drugs, suspicious writing, and other items not a threat to aviation (unless there was obvious proof of a felony in progress--e.g., severed human head in luggage), and if passengers had the option to back out of the process at any point. That was originally the scope and limitation of the reasonable "consent administrative search" which has grown into the monster that is TSA.

As it is, TSA has required innocent Americans to be subject to a papers-please government checkpoint, government permission request, and intrusive search of their person and belongings well beyond that needed to secure aviation against weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, in order to exercise their fundamental right to domestic travel. (Air travel is the only practical means for traveling from/to many places; claiming we have the choice to walk is silly.)

These machines produce a naked image, plain and simple. If DHS/TSA believes otherwise, I challenge every DHS executive and every TSA FSD and AFSD to post non-anonymous full-sized frontal WBI/MMW images of themselves and all of their children on a public website.

And claiming the machines can't record the images is a total farce. No way TSA is going to use a system that can't produce records for purposes of incident reports, law-enforcement referrals, potential lawsuits, CYA if anything bad happens, passenger fines for trumped-up offenses like non-physical interference, etc. This is the same agency that used to demand pax home address if they were unfortunate enough to get a false positive on the ETD. You expect me to believe you don't have the capability to store these images?

The only credible way to say TSA can't store the images is to subject the machines and their software to an independent audit by an auditor selected by a third party such as the EFF, Identity Project, etc. But of course TSA will never do that because they will hide behind SSI.

10 years ago no court in the USA would have upheld mass government-forced strip searches of individuals not suspected of any crime. Nothing that has happened since then or will happen in the future is worth shredding our dignity, privacy, and liberty to that level. WTMD, ETD/ETP, and property x-ray/CT are completely capable of detecting credible threats to aviation without requiring invasive strip searches, secret government blacklists, and general humiliation.

Just to be clear, passengers who want to fly often do NOT have the choice to opt out of the whole body imager.

The CNN specifically says, "When given a choice, 'over 99 percent of passengers choose this technology over other screening options.'" [emphasis added]

In Las Vegas, the whole body imager is used as a primary screening device instead of the metal detector arch, not just as a tool for secondary screenings. Passengers are not notified of what it does or that they have another option. I bet if you polled them, at least 90 percent would not even realize that it's an imaging device. Therefore, most people are not giving informed consent.

TSOs are forbidden from taking cameras (and presumably camera phones) into the booth with the WBI display. How is this enforced? Are they subjected to a pat down before they begin their shift in the booth? Do they use the imager to see if the TSO is concealing a camera?

H2H: "I think legislation on this matter is a good thing(sets boundaries). I don't think the use of Whole Body Imaging should ever be used without privacy algorithms and this should be on the books(law)."

Since most of the TSA's operations are shrouded in secrecy and exempt from oversight and accountability by design, how can we be sure that any such law will either be followed or effective? Who will hold you accountable for following the law? If TSOs aren't even held accountable for following the TSA's own rules, how can we have any confidence that they'll follow the law?

H2H: "If a party does not believe the black and white images produced by the MMW Machine is a strip search, your question couldn't not be answered with the response you are trying to fish out because of the language of your question."

If you narrowly define a strip search as an officer physically commanding a criminal or prisoner to remove their clothing so they can inspect the naked body for contraband, then the MMW scanner is not a strip search. But you cannot deny the MMW scanner electronically removes a suspected terrorist's (i.e., an airline passenger) clothes to inspect their naked body for contraband. If that's not a strip search, then what exactly is it?

I guess I shouldn't ask that question of someone who insists that the TSA never ever "confiscates" items that TSOs decide are prohibited, but instead passengers "voluntarily abandon" them after a comprehensive discussion of options. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and leaves messy droppings, it's a duck. Except at TSA checkpoints, where it has an entirely official definition. But that definition is SSI, so we just have to trust you.

Like all things government, it starts with a fuzzy image, becomes a clear image, and soon you are on full display! Wear us down gradually until we submit. We are only giving up a "small" part of our privacy & rights....before we are not!

What the public needs to understand is that the TSA's job is to make you feel safe from yourself. By annoying you in the process, you are tricked into believing that somewhow the process is working

Reality is far from that because a true terrorist still has a plethorea of tools availabile to them to overpower the flight crew (e.g., knitting needles, 7" screwdriver, soda can, shoe laces, luggage straps, etc.). Interview any Prision Guard and you will quickly learn how a simple weapon can be fashioned from ANYTHING at hand. The terrorist is trained to know this..just like we train law enforcement. The average consumer (us) is not, and that is why this whole process is somewhat silly. Sure, visual deterrence is an important first step, but it only prevents the honest person from doing something (and we had no plans to do so in the first place)!

So, when you read the statistics page, what is glaringly missing is the intent. So, they confiscated a gun....likely, the person they took it from probably had no real intent of using it on board anyway...but it sounds good to report....never mind the pilot is armed!

True security will come from alert passengers....The "shoe bomber" was stopped by passengers...NOT the flight crew or TSA. Yet, a million people a day now take off their shoes...

And, the simple process of securing the cockpit door has done more in terms of real security than anything. The reality is the passengers are collateral damage (and the PA passengers knew that). As long as cockpit entry cannot be made, the aircraft remains in control which gives the passengers time to take action to overpower the trouble makers. THAT is how security needs to work!

Let me try it again without any description of the second image on the CNN story and see if this gets through the delete-o-meter.

If you reduce the resolution enough that the MMW image cannot be pornographic, then the image is probably not good enough for a useful screening. If the image is high enough resolution to discover a blasting cap taped behind certain body parts, the resolution of the image is high enough to be pornographic.

Another Anonymous said...TSOs are forbidden from taking cameras (and presumably camera phones) into the booth with the WBI display. How is this enforced? Are they subjected to a pat down before they begin their shift in the booth? Do they use the imager to see if the TSO is concealing a camera?________________Keep in mind that the statement says they are forbidden to take cameras in, not that they don't take cameras in. There really is a difference.

It's similar to all of us being forbidden to exceed the speed limit... It doesn't prevent it, it just means there might be a penalty if we do.

One flight attendant, Hermis Moutardier, walked the aisles of the plane, trying to assess the source. She found Reid, who was sitting alone near a window and attempting to light a match. Moutardier warned him that smoking was not allowed on the airplane; Reid promised to stop. A few minutes later, Moutardier found Reid leaned over in his seat; her attempts to get his attention failed. After asking "What are you doing?" Reid grabbed at her, revealing one shoe in his lap, a fuse which led into the shoe, and a lit match. She tried grabbing Reid twice, but he pushed her to the floor each time, and she screamed for help. When another flight attendant, Cristina Jones, arrived to try to subdue him, he fought her and bit her thumb. PASSENGERS then subdued Reid.-Wikipedia

"As long as cockpit entry cannot be made, the aircraft remains in control which gives the passengers time to take action to overpower the trouble makers. THAT is how security needs to work!"

_____________________________

Yeah, right. You are correct, to some extent. The major threat is not that a plane will be hijacked. It is still possible, I would think, but that is not the main concern/worry TSA has. With good reason.

In 2004 terrorist blew up 2 planes flying from Moscow just minutes apart. They did not try to hijack the plane. As you stated there are the security doors. No, they just wanted to get onto the plane, wait till it was on its way, and kill everyone and spread fear. These terrorist were middle aged white women.

Richard Reed only failed because of bad planning. He didn't try to hijack the plane either. His goal was to kill everyone in mid flight, but simply couldn't detonate his bomb because the fuse was wet. I hope you do understand everyone on that flight was lucky...

Specifically you claimed security doors would give "passengers time to take action" to stop suicide bombers. How?

Mr. Gel-pack“If you reduce the resolution enough that the MMW image cannot be pornographic, then the image is probably not good enough for a useful screening.”

This is a myth Mr. Gel-pack. Privacy settings designed by the manufacture do not hinder screening.

George said“Since most of the TSA's operations are shrouded in secrecy and exempt from oversight and accountability by design, how can we be sure that any such law will either be followed or effective?”

Are you saying you don't want legislation on Whole Body Imaging? Fair enough, but I hope you can at least agree that the issue needs to be debated on capital hill. The airport is not the only place where Whole Body Imaging is used.

George said...“I guess I shouldn't ask that question of someone who insists that the TSA never ever "confiscates" items that TSOs decide are prohibited, but instead passengers "voluntarily abandon" them after a comprehensive discussion of options.”

I have never said TSA(I think you mean Transportation Security Officers) has never “confiscated” a item from a passenger. You might be confused from previous discussions about TSA Standard Operating Procedures(SOP) concerning alternative options for items that have been prohibited from entering the sterile area such as “checking it in”.

Whats with the attack on character George. How about we attack the argument instead. If your argument is sound, then underhanded posting is not needed.

TO: No one specific

Seems like some of your posts have been pretty heated lately guys. None of my posts are meant to be angry in nature, offensive, filled with personal attacks, or meant to cause readers unneeded stress.

RB said… May 18, 11:23pmBob, will TSA allow minors to be screened by MMW WBI machines?May 20, 11:10amAnd I call foul on your foul call Tim.When TSA responds to questions with straight answers I and others will no longer have to repeat the same question for months on end.

Once again, asked and answered. Yes, minors will be screened. It has been stated several times. To continue to dwell on this question is a waste of time.

Philip said... RB said… May 18, 11:23pmBob, will TSA allow minors to be screened by MMW WBI machines?May 20, 11:10amAnd I call foul on your foul call Tim.When TSA responds to questions with straight answers I and others will no longer have to repeat the same question for months on end.

Once again, asked and answered. Yes, minors will be screened. It has been stated several times. To continue to dwell on this question is a waste of time.

May 21, 2009 10:38 AM

......................And again when this question was first supposedly answered it was an ambiguous answer.

The answer given was that anyone who could hold still with their arms raised "could" be screened in a MMW Strip Search Machine. TSA avoided being truthful by using the word "would" be Strip Searched.

Now I agree the question has finally been answered but not after months having gone by with the question asked.

I also now know why TSA didn't want to answer truthfully. Looking at the images provided by CNN makes the one reason perfectly clear.

The bottom line is TSA and its employees will engage in the Strip Searching of children.

@Tim: "Are you saying you don't want legislation on Whole Body Imaging? Fair enough, but I hope you can at least agree that the issue needs to be debated on capital hill. The airport is not the only place where Whole Body Imaging is used."

No, I'm not saying that. First, I'm questioning whether any such law would have any have teeth, since members of Congress are even more frightened of being called "soft on terrorism" than air travelers are of "Do you want to fly today?". And second, assuming a law does get on the books, I'm questioning whether it would have any effect on the TSA. The TSA has to implement the law with regulations, and those regulations would surely be SSI "for reasons of National Security." And as we all know, SSI regulations have the extremely convenient benefit of making it impossible for the public to know whether TSOs are following them, violating them with impunity, or making them up as they go along.

But I do agree that the issue needs to be debated on Capitol Hill. However, I'm not holding my breath. And I would also not be surprised if the TSA and certain members of Congress do everything possible to prevent unduly inflammatory words like "strip search" from coming out in public debate.

"Whats with the attack on character George. How about we attack the argument instead. If your argument is sound, then underhanded posting is not needed."

I'm not attacking your character. I am referring to your vociferous advocacy of the official TSA position that forfeiting "prohibited items" at checkpoints is "voluntary abandonment" rather than "confiscation." If anything, your steadfastly loyal adherence to your employer's official terminology indicates a virtuous character, even though the effect may not be virtuous to us.

"Seems like some of your posts have been pretty heated lately guys."

Of course they are. We're pretty upset with your plans to strip search us or grope us like criminal suspects or prisoners. Of course, your virtuous character demands that you repeat the Official TSA Line that it's not a strip search.

"To help you guys out a little bit. Here is a FREE HUG."

First a strip search, and now a hug? I don't even want to think about what's next on the TSA agenda.

RB said… “The answer given was that anyone who could hold still with their arms raised "could" be screened in a MMW Strip Search Machine. TSA avoided being truthful by using the word "would" be Strip Searched.”

Could, would, should, you are playing an inane word play game. As someone who travels moderately, 5 or 6 times a year, I am experienced with many different checkpoints across this country. TSA’s original answer of “could” is accurate; not all checkpoints have this device. Your insistences that TSA should be using the term “would” is a trivial game.

Please, don’t think I am only picking on you. Many of the other commentators on this site are equally repetitive. You just happen to be the unlucky individual who pushed me over the edge.

Philip said... RB said… “The answer given was that anyone who could hold still with their arms raised "could" be screened in a MMW Strip Search Machine. TSA avoided being truthful by using the word "would" be Strip Searched.”

Could, would, should, you are playing an inane word play game. As someone who travels moderately, 5 or 6 times a year, I am experienced with many different checkpoints across this country. TSA’s original answer of “could” is accurate; not all checkpoints have this device. Your insistences that TSA should be using the term “would” is a trivial game.

Please, don’t think I am only picking on you. Many of the other commentators on this site are equally repetitive. You just happen to be the unlucky individual who pushed me over the edge.

May 23, 2009 11:02 AM.....................

I don't feel your picking on me at all.

I travel at least as frequently as you do although the airports I transit are a select few. I have had some good and some very bad experiences at TSA checkpoints. Bad is beating out good.

The first was several years ago at a large airport in the mid south before the shoe madness had fully taken over.

A sign before the WTMD indicated a person could choose to keep shoes on. Since I have a medical reason to not remove shoes unless really needed I pick the option to keep my shoes on. You would have thought I was a card carrying extremist. Even with the sign saying I could keep shoes on which I pointed out to the TSA screener I got the full work over. It was clear that the sign was just something to humor the sheeple. I was taught a lesson by the TSA screener who gave me the going over. Nothing was left undone and the screening took as long as it could be dragged out.

It was a lesson I learned well. Never trust TSA to tell the truth.

I do think TSA via this blog used language that evaded a direct answer to the question asked. It's not the first evasion and I doubt will be the last.

Your free to understand what was said differently as I am to ask for straight answers.

I believe I have a constitutional right to make a private contract. That's what the ticket on the airline is. The contract can include whatever terms the airline and I agree to, including strip searches.

I also believe no third party (such as the TSA) has any right to interfere in that contract, and thus having made the contract I do indeed have a right to fly. Only if the airline and I agree to TSA searches do they become acceptable to me.

So by derivation of the right to private contract I do have a right to fly.

I believe I have a constitutional right to make a private contract. That's what the ticket on the airline is. The contract can include whatever terms the airline and I agree to, including strip searches.

I also believe no third party (such as the TSA) has any right to interfere in that contract, and thus having made the contract I do indeed have a right to fly. Only if the airline and I agree to TSA searches do they become acceptable to me.

So by derivation of the right to private contract I do have a right to fly."

RB, do you believe it is your constitutional right to fly on commercial airlines?

June 4, 2009 5:12 PM

I believe it is my right to travel by any means I wish. The agreement would only be between myself and the business who provides carriage.

The 10th Admendment to the Constitution limits the power of Federal Government. All other rights are reserved for the States or the People.

A Right does not have to spelled out in the Constitution, only a limit of rights when that power is given to the Federal Government.

I think a better question would be where is the Federal Government given the power to regulate travel, free association or the ability to freely assemble?

How about you, Anon, answering that question.

June 5, 2009 9:57 AM"

I will answer. I have to right to go where I want, within reason - I do not have to right to enter someone elses property without there permission. But I do have the right to head where I want, in general. I can go from city to city, state to state.

I do not have to right to fly. I do not have the right to drive. I do not have the right to take a bus, etc. All of these can be taken away, and taken away legally.

Being able to travel where you want, and the means of that travel are two different things.

We don't even have to get the government involved.

For many years I worked in the private sector. Rarely, the business I worked for would refuse to do business with a particular person, for whatever reason. This is perfectly legal.

So imagine if all airlines refused your business. They refused to fly you anywhere, without government interaction. Did they violate your right to fly?

By the way, our courts have ruled you do not have the right to fly. It is not protected by the Constitution.

I will answer. I have to right to go where I want, within reason - I do not have to right to enter someone elses property without there permission. But I do have the right to head where I want, in general. I can go from city to city, state to state.

It is not protected by the Constitution.

June 5, 2009 8:36 PM

......................A contract to fly to some destination by commercial aircraft is an agreement between to private parties. Of course any business can turn away my or your business.

As to protected rights, the Constitution limits government power and those specific things not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. A right does not have to be spelled out.

The government cannot restrict my freedom of movement without cause so therefore I do have a right to travel by any means I care to use. The only remaining point is finding a private business willing to provide carriage.

"I will answer. I have to right to go where I want, within reason - I do not have to right to enter someone elses property without there permission. But I do have the right to head where I want, in general. I can go from city to city, state to state.

It is not protected by the Constitution.

June 5, 2009 8:36 PM

......................A contract to fly to some destination by commercial aircraft is an agreement between to private parties. Of course any business can turn away my or your business.

As to protected rights, the Constitution limits government power and those specific things not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. A right does not have to be spelled out.

The government cannot restrict my freedom of movement without cause so therefore I do have a right to travel by any means I care to use. The only remaining point is finding a private business willing to provide carriage."

Sorry, but so far our court system has state that travel by air is not a protected right, that such travel is not gauranteed by the Constitution. If you really want, I will post specific quotes from court rulings that support what I say. But why wait for my post? You have access to the same resources I have; a quick search on the internet will find you those documents.

However, a quick post for your benefit from Gilmore v Gonzales:

"Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violateshis constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel bycommercial airlines without presenting identification, whichis an impermissible federal condition. We reject Gilmore’sright to travel argument because the Constitution does notguarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."

After reading this I am sure you now know the right to enter into private contact is different than right to travel by air. So hopefully you will not confuse the two subjects again.

"I will answer. I have to right to go where I want, within reason - I do not have to right to enter someone elses property without there permission. But I do have the right to head where I want, in general. I can go from city to city, state to state.

It is not protected by the Constitution.

June 5, 2009 8:36 PM

......................A contract to fly to some destination by commercial aircraft is an agreement between to private parties. Of course any business can turn away my or your business.

As to protected rights, the Constitution limits government power and those specific things not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. A right does not have to be spelled out.

The government cannot restrict my freedom of movement without cause so therefore I do have a right to travel by any means I care to use. The only remaining point is finding a private business willing to provide carriage."

Sorry, but so far our court system has state that travel by air is not a protected right, that such travel is not gauranteed by the Constitution. If you really want, I will post specific quotes from court rulings that support what I say. But why wait for my post? You have access to the same resources I have; a quick search on the internet will find you those documents.

However, a quick post for your benefit from Gilmore v Gonzales:

"Gilmore alleges that the identification policy violateshis constitutional right to travel because he cannot travel bycommercial airlines without presenting identification, whichis an impermissible federal condition. We reject Gilmore’sright to travel argument because the Constitution does notguarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."

After reading this I am sure you now know the right to enter into private contact is different than right to travel by air. So hopefully you will not confuse the two subjects again.

June 7, 2009 9:53 PM

I disagree, the constituion only limits the opwer of Federal Government. Since there is no miention of a limitation on a citizens right to travel by any means they choose the right to travel is apparent.

Now if you think the courts get it right all the time please justify these Supreme Court Rulings:

1857Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

1896Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

I most certainly do not have the right to force a business to do business with me.

That is what those of us who study logic call a "red herring".

Gilmore talks about the ability of the TSA, the third party I was discussing, to demand ID, and even then the case doesn't cover nearly as much as the apologists say it does. Just look at Trollkiller's excellent analysis and you will see that the TSA lacks both legal and constitutional backing for forced identification.

The Gilmore decision has no impact at all on the private contract between myself and the airline. The airlines can decide they don't want to sell to me, and that does not relate to the Gilmore decision in any way. I can decide I don't want to buy from them, and that does not relate to the Gilmore decision in any way.

You are introducing irrelevancies when you try to imply that Gilmore says I cannot force a business to do business with me. I never claimed that I can force an airline to sell me a ticket. My claim is that no third party has the right to intervene in that sale. THIRD PARTY. As in not the buyer and not the seller but someone else.

The TSA is a third party. They are interfering with my right to private contract.

I enjoyed all the comments here and their valid points. The fact of the matter is this. If a "terrorist" really wanted to do something bad at an airport there is nothing stopping him technically or otherwise. TSA is one big show. I have made jokes about when they will make us strip down in, and now we are here. What people have not addressed on this blog are the dangers of radiation and exposure to this. Unless they can 100% convince me that this poses no danger to my health then this is assault with a deadly weapon. TSA is just another form of government encroaching on all of our rights to the pursuit of happiness.

Have you read the 4th Amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Is scanning the only answer?